CA: Chiropractors Performing Manipulation Under Anesthesia Stated Claims Against Insurance Company and Its Employee for Malicious Prosecution

Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, issued a March 31, 2010 order in Ambrose v. Coffey:

Malicious Prosecution—Chiropractors—Manipulation Under Anesthesia—U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, denied plaintiffs chiropractors' motions for reconsideration as to whether, at time when criminal proceedings were instituted against them, it was clearly established that performance of manipulation under anesthesia was lawful under California law, granted plaintiffs chiropractors' motions for reconsideration as to whether they have stated claims for malicious prosecution as to defendant district attorney's investigator and denied this defendant's motion to dismiss this claim, granted in part motion of defendants district attorney, district attorney's investigator, and county that employed them to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints, granted in part motion of defendants insurance company and its employee to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints that alleged false arrest under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, and otherwise denied motion, and denied motion of defendants insurance company and its employee to dismiss plaintiffs' motion for judgment on pleadings, when court found that plaintiffs were chiropractors performing manipulations under anesthesia, that insurer instigated investigation into legality of these manipulations and submitted requests for prosecution to district attorney, who filed criminal complaints against chiropractors pursuant to this request, that all such criminal complaints were eventually dismissed, that plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to state claim for malicious prosecution in that prosecutions lacked probable cause because they were induced by conduct taken in bad faith, that defendant district attorney had absolute immunity against such claim, but that defendant district attorney's investigator did not have such immunity, that defendants district attorney and district attorney's investigator are not entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs' due process claim that defendants prosecuted plaintiffs without fair notice that their conduct was unlawful, that defendant district attorney is entitled to absolute immunity as to plaintiffs' due process argument only insofar as his conduct was “prosecutorial,” and that plaintiffs have stated claims against defendants insurance company and its employee for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 and state law. © Copyright 2010 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.

Read the decision

Source: California Compensation Cases (LexisNexis Matthew Bender)